Talk:List of aircraft engines/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

TUrbocompound

Turbocompound isn't (as I understand it) a jet engine. Also, where is the R3350 TC variant, developed after WW2? Trekphiler 23:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Flags

I think the use of flags in this article is distracting and cluttered. I've asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft for anyone who wants to weigh in. --Rlandmann 02:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. - BillCJ 04:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Rlandmann, flags should be removed if the list is to remain ordered by engine name. MilborneOne 11:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. idsnowdog 9:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC) I don't think the flags are distractive. Although I wouldn't mind seeing engines sorted by country in alphabetical order with a single flag entry for each.

I've ~~started to cleaning~~ cleaned this list from flags except "piston engine" section - I'll make it tomorrow. I've entered alphabetical order by country of origin. This should make this article cmore readable and should bring more order to the list. Piotr Mikołajski 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ireally don't see why these engines should be grouped by country. I've re-arranged the list so that it parallels the List of aircraft, a straight alphabetical list, with a subheading for each manufacturer. If you think that a by-country listing is useful, we could always make List of aircraft engines by country, just like someone split off List of aircraft engine manufacturers by country from the List of aircraft engine manufacturers. --Rlandmann 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to clear all these cluttered flags, nothing more. Maybe we should split this article to several smaller with List of turbofan aircraft engines but it's another story. Piotr Mikołajski 10:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that eventually at least a split between piston and turbines (at least!) will be a better way to go, but it's probably not too big yet to worry about... --Rlandmann 11:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It took some getting used too but I think the changes are good. Would anyone be opposed to adding a single country flag next to each manufacturer? Something to remember is that although this list is a wonderful resource for those in the know, I think national flags would provide context to the uninformed. I will abide by your decisions Idsnowdog 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

"Oppose" is probably a bit too strong a word; but I really wish you wouldn't. This list is pretty much just an index to our coverage of aircraft engines - it's not complete and probably never will be. As such, I think it's best to be left as minimalist as possible, leaving the actual content on the pages of the manufacturers and engines themselves.

More to the point, however, I think that adding flags tends to unduly emphasise the importance of the country of origin of the engine. Take a read of this draft proposal - it's not Wikipedia policy (yet), so it's not a "rule" as such, but I personally feel that the two sections Don't emphasize nationality without good reason and Help the reader rather than decorate are strongly applicable to pages like this one. Flag icons can be really useful to express information concisely (like in summaries of battles -example - or sporting events) but in lists they are (IMHO) simply decoration that doesn't tell the reader anything that typing out the country name wouldn't. In most cases, it actually tells the reader less (see the section on Problems with flag icons in this user essay).

Finally, read the discusson that WikiProject:Aircraft has been having about this issue: there's strong support for restricting flags to just the user/operator section of articles.

In short, if you added these icons in, I wouldn't be reverting you, but like I said earlier... please don't! :) --Rlandmann 08:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

While looking around I noticed there is another list of aircraft engines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_engine_manufacturers_%28alphabetical%29 This one is in alphabetical order without sub groups for type of engine. Should this list be merged excluding the links that don't pertain to aircraft engines? Idsnowdog 01:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No - that's a list of manufacturers, this is a list of engines, just as we have a list of aircraft and a list of aircraft manufacturers. --Rlandmann 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

de Havilland Cirrus?

Is the de Havilland Cirrus another name for the Cirrus Minor or Major? The two companies were related. Are there distinct engines from each or would a redirect be in order? Idsnowdog 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

These are completely different engines. The DH Cirrus was a 1924 design by Halford based on half of a wartime Renault Vee-8. If you've got Gunston, you can read about it on p.40. --Rlandmann 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we have different editions? The book I have mentions the Renault but doesn't give much detail of the DH cirrus. Idsnowdog 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The engine that Gunston is describing for the whole first paragraph - specifically, the Cirrus I, II, and III - is the one commonly (and inaccurately) referred to as the DH Cirrus. Cirrus (aircraft engine) would probably be the best name for the article, with de Havilland Cirrus, ADC Cirrus and Airdisco Cirrus redirecting to it. --Rlandmann 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing types

Considering how long this article has been here, I find it odd that no turboprop/turboshaft engines (or cartegores) are listed here. I would start them myself, but I wanted to make sure they weren't left out for a reason not obvious to me. Considering that some turboprop enignes also serve as turboshafts, and vice versa (T700/CT7, PT6 family), it would probably be best to list them together. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

They've always been here - they're just not showing on the Table of Contents at the moment - I'll try to figure out why... --Rlandmann 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, looks like a TOC error, though the Tp and TS aren't showing in the TOC. Makes me wonder if one that complicated is needed. - BillCJ 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wankel Engines

Maybe there should be an entry under the TOC for Wankel style engines? Although not numerous they are an interesting alternative technology. Idsnowdog 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! Do we have articles on any yet (apart from adapted auto engines, that is)? --Rlandmann 23:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that pulse jets, ramjets, scramjets, and pulse detonation engines also merit inclusion? Just as a technology primer? Idsnowdog 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Again - absolutely! Even the couple of steam aero engines if we can round up the names of specific types. Remember that this is a list of engines, so things should only appear here if we can point to at least one specific example of that type. --Rlandmann 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WWI engine table

I found this table and formatted it for wiki and some might find it useful for WWI engine articles. The rough specifications seem to match pretty well but I don't know about the fuel/oil consumption statistics?Idsnowdog 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WWI engine table

Type	Bore	Stroke	Comp Rat	Liters	Nom HP	Normal HP	Nom@10000ft	Normal MEP@rpm	Torque(lb-ft)	Dry Weight	Fuel Use lb/hr	Oil Use lb/hr

LeRhone 9J	112mm	170mm	4.83:1	15.1	110	131@1300	95.9	86.7@1300	530	336 lbs	78.07	12.3
Clerget 9Z	120mm	160mm	4.36:1	16.3	110	122	89.3	77.7@-	513	367 lbs	96.4	11.3
Clerget 9B	120mm	160mm	4.56:1	16.3	130	134	98	84.5@1250	563	385 lbs	78.4	17.42
Clerget 9BF	120mm	172mm	2 types	17.5	140	148	108	87.7@1250	622	394 lbs	81.4	17.76
Clerget 11EB	120mm	190mm	5.1:1	23.6	200	197@1300	144	52.3@1300	796	512 lbs	141.8	28.7
Gnome 9B-2	110mm	150mm	-	12.8	100	100@1200	-	-	-	272 lbs	-	-
Gnome 9N	115mm	170mm	5.2:1	15.9	150	154@1300	112.7	96.7@1300	622	320 lbs	126.28	16.9
Hispano 8?	120mm	130mm	4.7\5.3:1	11.8	200	208	152\161	115/121@2000	546/548	515 lbs	112/118.8	13.9/14.7

Propose losing "reciprocating" as a descriptor

It's got a long history but "piston" is sufficient. And "reciprocating engine" and, even worse, "reciprocating piston" are downright silly. Are there "reciprocating engines" in this list or "non-reciprocating pistons"? :-)

Saintrain (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, it did look wrong and I only noticed it as you mentioned it, possibly comes from reciprocating engine but I would totally agree that 'piston engine' is the much more common name. The project has got tangled up before with what to call different engines, especially with the rotaries and Wankel rotaries etc. Best to keep it simple for the readers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My kind of discussion to reach consensus!!!! Thanks. Saintrain (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If it looks wrong it probably is, though to others it looks right and that's where the fun starts!! This list has been neglected for a while but it's getting better. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft engines are aircraft engines

I found the split between engine types particularly unhelpful whilst doing some research recently, so toyed with the idea of merging the whole lot, as I couldn't see any reason to have separate sections for piston engines , jet engines etc. etc.. I think you will find the list much more user-friendly and easier on the eye, similar to List of aircraft. Enjoy.Petebutt (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree I'm afraid. Let's see what others think. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Nimbus has a point there are some advantages to segregating by engine category. - 16:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations and references

We've been through this at List of Aircraft, and after lots of teeth gnashing and useles reference adding it was finally discovered that they aren't necessary for a list where the entries will link to articles (present or future). See WP:REDDEAL for why redlinks aren't bad for a list like this. So please get off your high horse and let us manage this list sensibly. Thank you.Petebutt (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Pete: Two points. First while redlinks are allowed in lists, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, references are required: "This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception". Second when you make statements like "So please get off your high horse and let us manage this list sensibly" it sounds like you need to consider WP:AGF and WP:NPA first. - Ahunt (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Red links are not the problem (although it is difficult to create an article if no potential source is given). Red links are the same as a plain unlinked black text entry. I searched for similar articles to see how the Wikipedia policies are applied to lists, List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules contains many red links but every single entry red, blue or black (that I can see) has an inline reference citation. That article is a Featured List and it could be argued that this list of engines is currently not. At some point in the future an editor (or editors working together) may want to progress this list through the article quality ladder, with unreferenced entries that would be very difficult, if not impossible. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand the feature list problem, but this list will never be complete and so can never actually be classed as a featured list. Secondly the source of many entries made in the past may be lost to time, (although still there). Yes, my language was a little harsh and I apologise;I have been unwell the last few days and the frustration crept into my reasoning. What I have written re {{WP:REDDEAL]] still stands though. Yes you can add references / citations for entries in the list but, despite the WP policies it is essentially unnecessary, and adding 'citation needed' entries with threats of deletion is counter-productive.Petebutt (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as a community, acknowledges that even Featured Articles and Featured Lists are not necessarily complete or perfect, each talk page Featured Article/List status banner has the words '...if you can improve it, please do so'. We also have to bear in mind WP:NOT, particularly the WP:NOTEVERYTHING section which is essentially saying not to try and list everything that there ever was. 'Despite the WP policies' seems to say that you disagree with them which makes it very difficult for the many editors who are trying to comply with the policies and slows progress to a 'porridge trudging' crawl when their edits are reverted. A passing reader can easily place a 'cn' tag on any unreferenced entry, they would be asking the basic questions 'where did this information come from and how can I verify it?' What we are trying to do here is avoid that by tagging the entries and then referencing them as quickly as is practical.

As a fairly active engine article creator with access to a lot of related sources (book and web-based) I am having great difficulty finding some of these manufacturers and engine types, I can surely ask the question 'did they exist?', if a source is given I can say 'yes, it did exist, it's notable and I'll try to create an article on it or link it to an existing related article section'. At a minimum a no wiki note saying what type of engine it was and what the reference source was would help but why do that when Wikipedia has an established system to do it visibly? I would like to work towards Featured List status for this article (it could easily become one with some effort), they contain much more text (possibly a summary of each manufacturer's location, time frame and product range under each section heading could be added here). The fairly recent addition of images was a consensus move to improve it, as is the current effort on providing references, I noticed last week that the whole list was virtually unreferenced and it was far better to act than have someone else spot it and possibly take it to AfD, there are editors out there who do this regularly and they have policies to back them up. What happens then of course is that the obviously notable article gets immediate referencing attention and every one (almost} is happy. A bit TLDR perhaps but I am struggling to understand the objection to the perfectly normal improvement process of this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is really pretty straightforward - WP:V is a policy and it requires refs for list entries, so we have to have them. If you disagree then get the policy changed, but please don't remove refs or ref needed tagging. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We could put a ref against every entry, but I thought Nimbus' idea of Sources:xxxx except if noted header a good one which would greatly cut down the clutter. To do this efficiently, with an editor working his or her way through xxxx, requires the identification (noting) of engines not in that source, to be replaced by a specific ref later. That avoids misleading readers, which is what we are doing after removing the cns, and helps any editor to join in with new sources. Any way of labelling an engine as "without a ref yet, but we're on the case" which avoids the deletion risk of cns would be worth debate.TSRL (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What makes this a reliable source? The added Japanese characters are not rendering (this is the English version of WP isn't it?). The word 'Jap' is widely taken as an insulting term, use 'Japanese' instead. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important that Japanese names are included, as written in Japanese, as there is a similar problem to that with Cyrillic, with english names being merely a phonetic representation. Wikipedia is supposed to be informative and accurate!!!Petebutt (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that is an WP:SPS source - not acceptable. - Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

go to [1] for references sources and external links to the same standard as Wikipedia ,does that not count????Petebutt (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is still a self published hobby site but at least he publishes sources, so if you can verify that the sources are accurate, you can use those. Incidentally Wikipedia does not accept Wikipedia as a source, see WP:CIRCULAR. basically Wikipedia doesn't consider Wikipedia a reliable reference. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Harping back on this subject, I am endeavouring to provide refereences to entries I have made, but continue to find different WP policies which contradict each other. You quote some that say EVERYthing must be referenced and others state that only info that is challenged or likely to be challenged MÚSt be referenced. So Yiu can shake the bag and pull out whatever Policy you want. /having said that I too would like to see the aviation lists elevated to featured status. The question is what is REAlly NECESSARY TO DO THIS?Petebutt (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Variant listing?

Am I right in thinking that we are now attempting to list every variant of every engine there ever was? Seems completely unencyclopedic to me. If an engine does have a variant with its own article then that should be listed but others should be left to their article to list/describe. Can I also ask why the lead note for readers was removed without explanation? Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont think this is was every meant to be a list of engine variants as far as I know the variants are listed in the related articles. Some engines have tens of sub-variants which as you say is not really needed here. MilborneOne (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The intention is to list the variants initially, and when articles are written the variants can be added to the articles and re-directs made for the variants, which would allow the variants to be removed from the list. Does that make sense? I have carried this through in several areas recently, notably Hispano-Suiza.Petebutt (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I dont think that is really what this list is for, perhaps consider listing all the engines needing articles or redirects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Missing articles and just leave the main engine type on this list. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't actually think of a single aero engine article that has variant articles split off (assuming the same parent manufacturer). The Merlin has a list of Rolls-Royce Merlin variants split off but that is intended to cover all the variants. The reason that single variant articles have not been created is that they would fail at AfD/PROD on notability, parent articles would rarely be long enough to warrant a split and the title would get redirected to the main engine type. Even if all the variant red links listed here were created as redirects there would be no point listing them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It would make more sense to me to list the redlinks that will become stand alone articles and not list all variants as redlinks. It might mislead someone into creating those all as individual articles, which will be a mess to clean-up! I really think this list ought to just list the main engine types that need stand alone articles written. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The only strict variant aeroengine article that I know of is Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6T, a variant of the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6. We do have a few articles that cover the militray and civil variants separately, such as General Electric J79 and General Electric CJ805, and General Electric J85] and General Electric CJ610, but these are very rare also. In most cases we'll never need separate articles for variants, individually or collectively, as with the Merlin. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As consensus has clearly been reached to not list variants (without articles) there should be no objection to them being removed. There is no point transferring the red links to the project missing article list as variants don't get listed there either. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-empting complaints of lost work/material this is the current revision of the list, I suggest the content is copied into a user sandbox for future reference. Even if that is not done the content will still be there, nothing is ever lost. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there trigger. Who said anything about writing individual articles? It seems a good idea to use the list for our benefit. Add all the variants and when the main article is written the variants are listed in the Variants section, not difficult is it. Once written the main article makes the variant entries on the list redundant and they can be removed once re-directs are made. Problems?Petebutt (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly you want to use this list as a 'holding area' as a reminder as to which variants to include when a type article is eventually written? That's no use to readers and makes the list look very untidy. A user sandbox or the project list of missing articles would be the best place to do that. It is clear that the majority of editors commenting in this thread are not in favour of listing variants. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nimbus - this is a mainspace article, not a project page, it has to serve casual readers, not project members. What you are proposing should go into a sandbox or project page as sort of "notes for future articles". - Ahunt (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

RB with a dot, but why?

I'd be interested to know why a few of the Rolls-Royce engines are listed as (e.g.) 'RB.163' rather than the universal (in my experience) 'RB163'. I'm perfectly certain that I have never seen the RB.163 style used anywhere but here. I'm on somewhat less sure ground with the Bristol engines, but I'd be surprised if they were not usually written in the same way - BS53 and so on. 86.3.108.41 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a period "period" thing (if you'll excuse my attempt at a joke) A similar thing happened with aircraft (see British_military_aircraft_designation_systems#Format_of_designation ). This page from an article in Flight shows BS.xx styles alongside other manufactures non-dotted style. This later page in the same article shows the RB.xx style. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft engines

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft engines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Janes":

From Borzecki 2RB: Taylor 1973, p. 687
From Bugatti U-16: Jane's fighting aircraft of World War I, originally published by Jane's Publishing Company, 1919, re-printed by Studio Editions Ltd, London, 1990, pps 275-277, ISBN 1-85170-347-0
From Dongan Engine Manufacturing Company: "DEMC - Dongan Engine Manufacturing Company (China), Aero-engines - Manufacturer". Jane's Information Group. Retrieved 2009-06-13.
From Cicaré 4C2T: Taylor 1973, p. 656
From Pratt & Whitney T73: Janes: JT12
From Ranger V-770: Jane, Frederick Thomas; Bridgman, Leonard; Gunston, Bill (1989), 0-517-67964-7 Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, London: Random House, ISBN 1-85170-493-0 {{citation}}: Check |url= value (help)
From Rotax 462: Taylor 1989, p. 681

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

images

After having persistent problems of the page not loading after an edit, I have removed all but the infobox image. It is probably a good idea any way as the images are best served in the relevent articles.--Petebutt (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems it is not the images as the problem remains.--Petebutt (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the list of rocket engines page still available? It seems that merging into aircraft engines is similar to merging "list of rockets" with "list of aircraft", which makes little sense since rockets are designed to travel in different environments (space) than traditional aircraft. rhyre (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

current jet engines list

Hello, a table listing current jet engines would be a good thing for comparisons. A good basis would be the jet engines list from Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2005-2006 that I put in a table as I did in Turboprop#Current engines. The List of aircraft engines is too big with many piston engines and defunct engines. Where do you think this list would be more useful? in Turbofan, in Airbreathing jet engine, in a new List of jet engines or List of current jet engines? Or split the List of aircraft engines in propeller/jets, currrent/ancient? thanks for your interest --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We are not really here to provide comparisons so a list of "current" jet engines would be out of place, like it is in turobprop. This is a list of all aircraft engines so will obviously full of engines not longer produced thats the idea of the list. Current is not that encyclopedic, that said I can see room for a List of aircraft engines in production. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of aircraft engines. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131023070248/http://home.comcast.net:80/~aeroengine/Minie.html to http://home.comcast.net/~aeroengine/Minie.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

1th

"Aircraft engines of the World 1954 (1th ed.)" 1th can't be right, and the sequence it belongs to doesn't look right either: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 1th, 1th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 1th, 19th, 20th, 21st. Art LaPella (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a copy and paste error, only three editions are actually used so I have trimmed the list. Looks like a lot of the other biblio entries are not used either so the whole list could do with a prune to match the references used. MilborneOne (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of aircraft engines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207170631/http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Duxford/1910-3.htm to http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Duxford/1910-3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of aircraft engines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212213152/http://www.enginehistory.org/Diesels/CH1.pdf to http://www.enginehistory.org/Diesels/CH1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of aircraft engines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of aircraft engines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Would table format be better?

If someone searched for an engine with certain features, finding the engine from a long list would be difficult. But if all data was arranged into a sortable table, task would be easier. However the list is so long that some assisting software would be needed to produce such a table. In the table there would be several columns for manufacturer, model, engine type, power, weight, length, width, height, internal rotation speed, output shaft rotation speed, and one more column for everything else. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably there could be different tables for each engine type. For example, turboshaft and turboprop resemble each other, but then piston engines, turbofan, turbojet, etc. are different. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Dont really want to extend this table to include a full list of specifications it is just meant to be a list of engines, detailed information should stay in the relevant articles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Future additions

Because FAA certification testing program takes three years for new aero engines, I thought it may be good to have a special topic for new engines waiting for a certificate. So, I suggest that new engines would be added within this topic. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Tokyo-based AC Corp. is going to penetrate aero engine markets with their step-piston two-stroke engines. According to Aviation International News article the testing program has started approximately one year ago and should be finished after late 2020. Source: Moll, Nigel (November 8, 2016). "AIN Exclusive: The Higgs Diesel". Aviation International News. AIN Publications. Retrieved 2018-11-29. Andy Higgs, a Brit who has lived in Japan for the last 32 years, is on a mission to bring a new engine to aviation, in the form of a jet-A-burning "step-piston two-stroke." The three-year FAA certification testing program will begin late next year. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)